2015 ANGLOPHONE NOMINATION

16th

-27th

NOVEMBER 2015

BALE ROBE AND ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

WORKSHOP REPORT

Report Prepared by the Coordination Team

Pascall Taruvinga (Coordinator-Culture)

Kagosi Mwamulowe (Coordinator-Nature)

With inputs from;

Oladipo Adeniyi Alafiatayo (Resource Person-GIS and Mapping)

Gertrude Matswiri (Resource Person-Culture)

Gloria Kendi Borona (Resource Person-Culture)

Guy Palmer (Resource Person-Nature)

Table of contents

Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Long Term Objectives ................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Short Term Objectives .................................................................................................................. 6

3.0 SUMMARIES OF DAILY WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 6

DAY 1-3: Travel to Bale Robe and Field visits ...................................................................................... 6

3.4 DAY 4: 19 NOVEMBER 2015: PROPOSED SITES; RAPPORTEUR GLORIA BORONA .................. 7

3.4.1 Barotse Cultural Landscape: Zambia (referred site) ....................................................... 7

3.4.2 Human Rights, Liberation and Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites: South

Africa 8

3.4.3 Nyero and other hunter gatherer sites -Uganda (deferred site) .................................... 9

3.4.4 Venn’s Town Mission Station Historical Site: Seychelles .............................................. 10

3.4.5 Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay - Mukkawar Island Marine

National Park ................................................................................................................................. 11

3.4.6 Bale Mountains National Park - Ethiopia ...................................................................... 11

3.4.7 Holqa SOF Omar/Sof Omar Caves of Mystery: Ethiopia (pre-check stage) .................. 12

3.4.8 Dire Sheikh Hussein: Ethiopia ....................................................................................... 13

3.4.9 Summary of resource person’s discussions .................................................................. 14

3.5 DAY 5: PROPOSED SITES (contd); 20 NOVEMBER 2015; RAPORTEUR OLADIPO .................. 14

3.5.1 Status of Thimlich Ohinga Nomination WHC-Kenya (deferred site) ............................. 14

3.5.2 Group work ................................................................................................................... 15

3.5.3 Dire Sheikh Hussein: Ethiopia ...................................................................................... 15

3.5.4 Holqa Sof Omar/Sof Omar Caves of Mystery: Ethiopia ................................................ 15

3.5.5 Bale Mountains National Park: Ethiopia ....................................................................... 16

3.5.6 Nyero and other hunter gatherer sites: Uganda .......................................................... 16

3.5.6 Summary of resource person’s discussions ................................................................. 16

3.6 DAY 6: 21St NOVEMBER 2015: COMMITTEE DECISIONS; RAPPORTEUR; GETRUDE

MATSWIRI ......................................................................................................................................... 17

3.6.1 Barotse Cultural Landscape : Zambia ............................................................................ 17

3.6.2 Sangneb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay - Mukkawar Island Marine National

Park –Sudan .................................................................................................................................. 17

3.6.3 Timlich Ohinga Cultural site: Kenya ............................................................................. 18

3.6.4 Human Rights, Liberation and Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites: South

Africa 18

3.6.5 Venn’s Town Mission Station Historical Site: Seychelles ............................................. 19

3.6.6 Summary of Resource Persons Discussions .................................................................. 19

3.7 DAY 6: 22St NOVEMBER 2015: PRESENTATIONS ON THEMATIC AREAS; RAPPORTEUR;

PASCALL TARUVINGA ........................................................................................................................ 20

3.7.1 Presentations ................................................................................................................ 20

3.7.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 20

3.7.3 Country Exercises .......................................................................................................... 20

3.8 DAY 7: 23 NOVEMBER 2015: MAPPING; RAPPORTEUR; OLADIPO ADENIYI ........................ 20

3.8.1 Mapping and Boundaries: Oladipo Adeniyi ................................................................. 20

3.8.2 Nomination process for Natural sites, mapping and Boundaries: Guy Palmer ........... 21

3.8.3 Nomination process ...................................................................................................... 21

3.8.4 Sharing the South African experience ........................................................................... 21

3.8.5 Critical pointers discussed by Guy Palmer .................................................................... 22

3.8.6 Presentation of Maps and issues arising from group discussions ................................ 22

3.8.7 Extra Comment on Maps .............................................................................................. 25

3.9 DAY 9: 23RD NOVEMBER 2015: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS-RAPPORTEUR; KAGOSI

MWAMULOWE ................................................................................................................................. 26

3.9.1 Comparative Analysis for natural properties: Guy Palmer ........................................... 26

3.9.2 Comparative Analysis Case Study: Okavango Delta Case (Botswana)-Gertrude

Matswiri 28

3.9.4 Management systems: Gloria Kendi Borona................................................................ 29

4.0 GROUP WORK: STATEMENTS OF OUTSTANDING VALUE AND WORK PLANS .... 29

4.1 23RD NOVEMBER 2015: STATEMENTS OF OUTSTANDING VALUE AND WORK PLANS .......... 29

4.2 24TH NOVEMBER 2015: SUMMARY OF GROUP WORKS ...................................................... 29

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 29

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD ............................................................. 30

6.0 ANNEXURES............................................................................................................................... 33

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The coordinating team would like to appreciate the Government of the Republic of Norway, the

Government of Ethiopia and the AWHF for financially supporting this workshop through the

facilitation of EPA. The coordination team equally appreciates the role of all participants and resource

persons who were supportive of the up streaming process.

Special thanks also go to the various participating States Parties for the photographs, maps and artistic

impressions, texts on Action Plans and Statements of Outstanding Universal Value used in this report

which have been extracted from their presentations during the workshop. Miss Pamela Mac Quilkan

cannot be ignored for her excellent skills in logistical support and her consistency in approaching

challenges throughout the program.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The African World Heritage Fund (AWHF), an inter-governmental organization launched in May

2006 with a mission to support the effective conservation and protection of natural and cultural

heritage of outstanding universal value in Africa, has been running African Nomination Training

Courses since 2008. This is in recognition of the fact that Africa is underrepresented on the

UNESCO World Heritage List, despite being rich in natural and cultural heritage. As of 2015 and

out of 1031 World Heritage properties, only 129 sites were from the African continent. Through

this programme, AWHF seeks to increase the number of African sites on the World Heritage List,

as well as promote better management of inscribed sites. AWHF works closely with key partners

such as the UNESCO World Heritage Centre (WHC), the Advisory Bodies (ABs), Heritage

Institutions (HIs), Heritage Experts (HEs) and Site Managers (SMs) and State Parties (SP) from

African countries. The objective of this initiative is to strengthen the capacity of African State

Parties in developing credible and quality nominations towards increasing the number of sites

inscribed from Africa on the World Heritage List. The 2014/15 nomination training courses took

place Burkina Faso (Francophone) and Botswana (Anglophone), while the 2015/16 training

workshops took place in Mali (Francophone) and Ethiopia (Anglophone).

This report focuses on the up streaming nomination workshop held in Ethiopia from the 16th -27th

of November 2015 in Robe and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. AWHF partnered with the Government

of Ethiopia and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to host the workshop. The workshop

attracted 7 States Parties namely; Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda and Zambia.

Eritrea pulled out last minute due to unforeseen circumstances. It attracted 21 participants (15

males and 6 females). Resource persons were drawn from Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, South

Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe (4 males and 2 females).

The closing ceremony of the 2015 Up streaming Process was hosted by the ARCCH at their offices

based at the National Museum of Ethiopia. The Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ms. Aisha

Mohammed Mussa, presided over the ceremony which included speeches by the Director General of

ARCCH (Mr. Yonas Desta), the Head of the UNESCO Addis Ababa office (Mr. Alaphia Wright) and

the East Africa Region Board Member of the AWHF (Dr. Mary Khimulu). Certificates and gifts were

given to all participants and resource persons. A farewell dinner was held at the Checheho Hotel

traditional restaurant. The AWHF Eastern Region Board Member was accompanied by Mr Jacob

Nyangila who represented the AWHF Director.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

2.1 Long Term Objectives

The long term objectives of the Program are to;

(i) Strengthen the capacity of African State Parties in implementing the World

Heritage Convention, and to; (ii) Increase the number, as well as improve the credibility and quality of nominations

from Africa to be inscribed on the World Heritage List.

2.2 Short Term Objectives

The short term objectives of the upstreaming workshops are to;

(i) Increase the chances of African nominations being inscribed by assisting States

Parties to produce quality and credible dossiers.

(ii) Build capacities in States Parties abilities to finalise nomination files.

(iii) Identify areas of need or gaps in the final phase of developing nomination files as

an upstreaming process.

(iv) Identify resource persons or mentors that will assist the State Parties in the

upstreaming process.

(v) Assist AWHF to identify sites for technical support as part of upstreaming

process.

3.0 SUMMARIES OF DAILY WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

DAY 1-3: Travel to Bale Robe and Field visits

On the first day, participants travelled to Bale Robe, the intended venue of the workshop. Site

visits were undertaken on the second day to two of the sites involved in the workshop; Bale

Mountains National Park and Holqa Sof Umar: Natural and Cultural Heritage (Sof Umar:

Caves of Mystery).

Plate1: A herd of Greater Kudu in the Bale Mountain National Park

Due to a number of unforeseen challenges, the workshop was moved back to Addis Ababa,

and thus on the third day the participants returned to Addis Ababa.

3.4 DAY 4: 19 NOVEMBER 2015: PROPOSED SITES; RAPPORTEUR GLORIA

BORONA

The workshop started off with the State Parties highlighting the key elements of their respective

nomination dossiers, including an overview of the comments received from the Advisory Bodies and

the World Heritage Committee on either deferred or referred sites. This was followed by discussions

and preliminary feedback being given to each State Party. Below is a summary of specific issues for

each State Party;

3.4.1 Barotse Cultural Landscape: Zambia (referred site)

Plate 2: Paddlers paddling the Royal Badge during the Kuomboka ceremony in Mongu, Zambia

The State Party highlighted progress made in resolving the comments received from the World

Heritage Committee and Advisory Bodies; i.e. clearly defining core and buffer zones, extending the

core area to include the national park and removal of urban areas. One key and outstanding issue is

how to deal with prospecting for minerals at the site. The coordination team noted that this is a matter

of concern as there is a growing trend of a conflict between extractive industries and conservation.

The State Party was advised to look at other sites dealing with similar issues (e.g. the Okavango case)

in order to come up with a convincing response or alternative model for the site for consideration by

advisory bodies.

Figure 1: Mapping showing the granted oil and gas exploration blocks in Zambia (October 2015)

3.4.2 Human Rights, Liberation and Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites: South

Africa

The State Party emphasized that this nomination dossier was part of a larger project to recognize the

struggle for liberation or roads to independence across Africa. The presentation generated some

debate on the personification of Nelson Mandela as an individual, in view of the fact that the World

Heritage Convention does not recognise individuals. Some of the participants argued that this would

silence the contributions of various other personalities and that the emphasis should be on the

liberation struggle itself and the various attributes conveying the significance (e.g. places, prisons,

architecture, landscapes, intangible values etc). It was also suggested that it is critical that there should

be a clear strategy of how this nomination will be developed as both a transnational as well as a

transcontinental project given that this heritage is a shared resources for Africa.

Plate 3: Union Buildings (Pretoria) South Africa; an element of the Human Rights, Liberation and

Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites

Plate 4: Constitution Hill, Johannesburg (South Africa); an element of the Human Rights, Liberation

and Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites

3.4.3 Nyero and other hunter gatherer sites -Uganda (deferred site)

This dossier was deferred for inadequately addressing management systems and for having an

insufficient comparative analysis to justify the outstanding universal value. Discussions centred on

the need to highlight the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) as advised by the World Heritage

Centre and Advisory Bodies within an emphasis on pigmy rock art as opposed to the San Rock Art

which is already represented on the World Heritage List. The State Party still has to address most of

the issues raised by the World Heritage Committee, including maps which were considered not

detailed enough, site specific management plans informed by site specific conditions assessment, and

gazetting of sites to offer them formal protection. At a global level, the workshop suggested that for

rock art sites, the continent should rather consider transnational serial nomination as opposed to each

State Party presenting its own site(s).

Plate 5: Rock Art of Nyero - Uganda’s Proposed World Heritage Site

3.4.4 Venn’s Town Mission Station Historical Site: Seychelles

9 Plate 6: An artistic impression of Venn’s Historic Town, Seychelles

According to the pre-check comments from the World Heritage Centre, the dossier was

considered incomplete on various fronts, including adhering to the required nomination

format. The workshop expressed a huge concern over these observations given that the site

has been discussed in previous nomination training programmes, including building capacity

for the State Party to implement the World Heritage Convention. It was noted that the State

Party has, therefore, to demonstrate willingness in developing this file for submission taking

into consideration the multiple gaps identified over the years. The discussion, just like the

previous recommendations, highlighted the urgent need to; further examine the slavery

concept; network with State Parties working on similar sites (e.g. Tanzania, Liberia etc.) and

sites already on the World Heritage List, expand the comparative analysis to include places

such as the USA, Brazil, the Caribbean (in relation to maroon communities or other relevant

aspects), and finally the need to work on the maps.

Plate 7: Ruins at Venn’s Historic Town, Seychelles

3.4.5 Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay - Mukkawar Island Marine

National Park

The State Party is clear on which is the core area but there are queries from the Advisory

Bodies regarding the extent of the buffer zone. Furthermore the Advisory Body made a

recommendation to include certain areas currently within the buffer zone as part of the core

area. It was agreed that there is a need to focus on fewer criteria (instead of the 4 that have

been chosen) to highlight the key attributes of the site in order to make a strong case for the

OUV. One of the interesting aspects, though it may not easily be justifiable, is the geological

processes being considered under criteria (viii).

Plate 8: Marine ecology of Sunganeb Proposed World Heritage Site, Sudan

3.4.6 Bale Mountains National Park - Ethiopia

The State Party highlighted the high levels of endemism and the presence of endangered

species as the key attributes that contributes to the OUV of the proposed site. The intention

by the State Party to relocate 5,000 community members who live within the park as part of

the conservation efforts, generated a debate on the ethics around relocation of communities,

social justice verses benefits and conservation. Also, it was not clear where the buffer zone is

and the workshop recommended that this will require proper mapping work. It was also

suggested that the State Party considers dropping criteria (vii) due to difficulties associated

with justifying this criteria and that they consider using criteria (ix) and (x) as this is where

the significance of this property lies and can easily be justified with existing data.

Plate 9: The endemic Mountain Nyala(Left) and endemic Ethiopian Wolf (right)

3.4.7 Holqa SOF Omar/Sof Omar Caves of Mystery: Ethiopia (pre-check stage)

The presentation highlighted the nature and cultural values of the proposed site, of which the World

Heritage Centre provided comments during a pre-check for completeness. The State Party was asked

to put some thought into what gives this site its OUV. While the geological attributes are impressive,

there are many other sites on the World Heritage List which would be considered more outstanding

than this site. The cultural uses of the site are interesting but the State Party needs to research on

anthropological values, especially how the practices mentioned are of international significance and

have developed in relation to the natural values of the cave. In case the site fails to meet the World

Heritage listing criterion, it was suggested that the State Party can consider listing it as a GeoPark.

Plate 10: So Omar Caves geomorphic features depicting former river bed levels

Plate 11 : Sof Omar subterranean caves system

3.4.8 Dire Sheikh Hussein: Ethiopia

The presentation highlighted religious significance linked to the spread of Islam, and how the

site is of importance to locals as a place of pilgrimage. The State Party argued that the social,

cultural attributes are of great interest and especially the aspects of peace and tolerance of

people from different belief systems. The workshop noted that it was not really clear what the

OUV of this site was in comparison with similar religious sites already on the World Heritage

list. The comparative analysis should have looked at sites such as Timbuktu which are

considered much more impressive and therefore, the architectural attributes of Dire Sheikh

Hussein may not be the most suitable from which to build a solid case. In addition, the

aspects of pilgrimage may not stand the test when compared to similar World Heritage and

other religious sites such as Mecca.

Plate 12: Dire Sheikh Hussein Temple: Ethiopia

3.4.9 Summary of resource person’s discussions

It was encouraging to see the participants critiquing each other’s dossiers and

making contributions on how to improve them.

State Parties should consider refining their national tentative lists to avoid

investing resources into sites that do not have the potential of being inscribed.

Resource persons will work with the groups and support them in the process of

refining their nomination files for the duration of the workshop. All maps from all

the State Parties to be reviewed by the mapping expert, while Guy Palmer would

give a presentation on mapping based on the recently approved extension of the

Cape Floral Region Protected Areas.

3.5 DAY 5: PROPOSED SITES (contd); 20 NOVEMBER 2015; RAPORTEUR

OLADIPO

3.5.1 Status of Thimlich Ohinga Nomination WHC-Kenya (deferred site)

The landscape consists of 4 enclosures with several homesteads on 21 hectares and was gazetted in

1981. It was on the World Monument Watch List in the year 2000 and was put in the Kenyan

tentative list in 2010. The State Party highlighted the OUV as enshrined in its status as a cultural

landscape of architectural significance in East Africa. It is presented under criteria (iii) and (iv). The

nomination dossier was referred by the World Heritage Committee in 2015 in order for the State Party

to consider the site as arch-type individual tradition settlement. Proper documentation of individual

homestead was also recommended. Also, in 2015, the World Heritage Committee suggested that the

buffer zone should be increased and a clearer management arrangement should be made with the

private land owners. It was noted that there were some inconsistencies with the comparative analysis

that failed to define a framework for comparing with sites such as the Great Zimbabwe, inscribed for

its dry stone walls and related engineering. The workshop reiterated the recommendation from

ICOMOS that the site should be considered as an Archaeological site /Human settlement under

criteria (v) within the Archaeology context of East Africa.

Plate 13: Thimlich Ohinga’s tight entrance and dry stone masonry -Kenya

3.5.2 Group work

Participants were asked to continue further work on specific areas relating to their nomination

dossiers in preparation for the detailed presentation. Resource Persons assisted the participants during

the group works.

Participants were then asked to make another round of presentations based on the Committee

Decision and/or Comments received at pre-check phase to assist with the upstreaming process during

the workshop. It was noted that South Africa had not received pre-check comments from the World

Heritage Centre but would present inputs and comments from the South African World Heritage

Committee.

3.5.3 Dire Sheikh Hussein: Ethiopia

The State Party still has to develop proper and annotated maps which they are working on, while

Sections 3, 5e, 6a were still to be reviewed, while Section 7b and 7c have to be completed as they

were omitted in the nomination dossier. The State Party intends to resubmit by 1st of February 2016.

The revision of the map, with a view of redefining the boundary and addressing the issues on scale

and presentation, is underway. The inadequacies in the management team in completing the task were

noted and this may require specific training for Ethiopia. The workshop reiterated that the OUV

should be clearly defined while the difference between the inner and the outer architecture could be a

strong point but this would require CraTerre to be consulted. Instead of a Tourism Development Plan,

it was recommended that the State Party should consider an Integrated Management Plan, which

should include Conservation, Tourism and Education elements. The workshop advised States Parties

to establish the OUV and the criteria before further work such as mapping and management planning

commences. The State Party noted these recommendations and proposed that a new nomination

dossier needs to be developed, but requested for assistance with getting political buy in at national

level.

3.5.4 Holqa Sof Omar/Sof Omar Caves of Mystery: Ethiopia

It was observed that they did not follow the required format and the maps were inadequate while some

sections were considered incomplete, and others were omitted. The State Party is re-writing the

dossier using the current format while the National Mapping Agency is reviewing all the maps. There

are various challenges which include the definition of the boundaries, financial and technical

resources. The workshop recommended that a consultative workshop with the communities be

convened, and proper maps and integrated management plan be developed for the site.

While the State Party was considering submitting the site as a mixed property, the workshop advised

that they rather focus more on its natural values, especially the geological aspects. The decision was

left to the State Party. Considering the geological component of the site the State Party could also be

used to explore the possibility of protection as a GEOPARK. On the other hand, Ethiopian

participants felt that at National level, they need to establish a reviewing body before finally sending

dossiers to UNESCO, as per the process in South Africa.

3.5.5 Bale Mountains National Park: Ethiopia

This property was submitted in 2008 and the World Heritage Centre comments were that the park

should be legalized and the State Party should prepare a Management plan before compiling the

nomination dossier. The inclusion of additional criteria and the standardization of the maps were also

highlighted as areas requiring attention. Since then, the Park has been gazetted, the development of

the Management plan is in progress and the nomination dossier is being prepared though with some

difficulties in the area of comparative analysis. The workshop advised against inclusion of more

criteria, but rather for the site to consider only criteria (ix) & (x). The State Party requested assistance

from a mentor during the development of their nomination dossier.

3.5.6 Nyero and other hunter gatherer sites: Uganda

The site was referred back to the State Party and they can still resubmit by February 2017. Most of the

comments from the World Heritage Committee have not been resolved, for example the gazetting of

sites is still underway, including the legal protection of the buffer zone. The State Party is fundraising

to be able to define the property boundary. There are discussions with TARA on how to handle the

issue of graffiti on the site. There are outstanding issues such as producing detailed maps and

photographic documentation of the rock paintings. An expert has been hired to extend the

management plans to include community involvement while the property name has been changed to

Nyero and other Geometric Rock Art Sites in Eastern Uganda. More research work needs to be

done and an international expert was requested by the State Party. It was suggested that on the issue of

Graffiti, conservation experts can be contacted directly instead of going through a third party as this

increases the cost and could also be sourced within the sub-region. A conservation strategy can be

worked out with the assistance of a University and a similar institution can be contacted to work on

the comparative analysis. There is the need for the State Party to work hard to meet the proposed date

of submission. The State Party was advised to develop an action plan and identify areas of need.

However, if the State Party is still fundraising at this stage then it might be difficult to meet the set

deadline of February 2017.

3.5.6 Summary of resource person’s discussions

Coordination team noted the following;

State Parties have to commit to resolving all issues raised by the World Heritage

Committee, World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies as part of upstreaming process.

Areas such as mapping, OUV, selection of Criteria and Comparative Analysis were

identified for presentation and discussion during the workshop. It was agreed the

coordination and resource team will present these areas.

Noting the varying capacities within participants and their level of understanding of the

World Heritage Convention, It was agreed that a questionnaire “Individual Needs

Evaluation Form” would be developed and given to the participants to fill the next day

to assist with identifying areas of thematic emphasis during the workshop.

3.6 DAY 6: 21St NOVEMBER 2015: COMMITTEE DECISIONS;

RAPPORTEUR; GETRUDE MATSWIRI

State Parties continued their presentations on the World Heritage Committee Decisions for referred

and deferred sites, as well as comments from pre-check for completeness by the World Heritage

Centre.

3.6.1 Barotse Cultural Landscape : Zambia

The State Party made a presentation on the recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee

and how they have interpreted the same. The State Party understood that they need to establish a

robust boundary for the core area that will take into account the essential attributes critical in

conveying the OUV. They also have to deal with major impacts of communication masts and

development excluding urban areas, airport area and zones for mining and gas and include the Liuwa

National Park. They also have to undertake a survey and document all the cultural attributes of the

Barotse Cultural Landscape, including outlining how the traditional management system interfaces

with modern management system. The State Party has to ensure that pylons are not installed near

palaces.

Actions taken by the State Party

The State Party explained that they intend to invite the Advisory body for the mission and are in talks

with the AWHF regarding this. They also explained that they have engaged the Ministry of

Telecommunications to find ways of avoiding the pylons and telecommunications mast being

installed near the palaces. A structured management approach has been agreed by relevant

stakeholders and this has been incorporated in the dossier. Mapping of the cultural attributes of the

site has been done including the Liuwa National Park, though no detailed database exists from the

documentation. A new boundary map has been produced and supporting text included. The State

Party explained that they plan to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1st February 2016 as they

have addressed most of the issues except the mining issue, which they hope will be addressed very

soon.

During the discussions it was realized that the State Party has not adequately addressed the issue of

mining, which is more complex than they think. It also needs political will by the State Party and this

may take time to resolve. Many concerns were raised regarding this issue. The workshop noted that

stakeholders who are interested and affected by the decision not to have developments in the area may

have not been adequately consulted and this may cause problems in the future. The State Party was

encouraged to take this matter seriously. The workshop recommended a checklist against all the

World Heritage Committee decisions to ascertain whether the State Party has fully resolved all

matters before re-submission or inviting Advisory Bodies.

3.6.2 Sangneb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay - Mukkawar Island Marine

National Park –Sudan

This site was referred in 2015 and the committee recommended the following:

The review of the boundaries of the buffer zone to better define the nominated area and buffer

zone;

The need to develop a management plan for all protected areas, but the workshop advised them to

consider an integrated management plan for the site;

The State Party needed to increase staff and financial resources for the effective management of

the property.

The workshop noted that the nomination dossier is at an advanced stage and there were very few

actions to be addressed and submission can still be done by 1st February 2016.

3.6.3 Timlich Ohinga Cultural site: Kenya

The State Party explained that their interpretation of the Committee Decision implied that they

reconsider the focus of the nomination to look at the site as an archaeological site/settlement and

extend the boundary of the site to cover all attributes. However, the State Party feels that the attributes

of the OUV are clearly covered and as such they do not need to extend the area. The State Party

explained that they will seek assistance from ICOMOS to address the issue of boundary and further

engage communities to correct the factual errors of the document and will further conduct

archaeological research in and around the site.

The workshop recommended that the State Party needs to further understand the concept of human

settlement in which the various elements/attributes of the site are fully identified, their linkages and

connection in defining the religious, socio-economic and social structure of the settlement pierced

together to define the boundaries of the phenomenon associated with the site. Connection between and

among the environment, the physiological attributes and the emerging cultural attributes of the site is

important in defining the significance of the site. The workshop also advised the State Party to seek

assistance of the British Institute of East Africa or engage a local archaeologist to assist in the

archaeological research (landscape archaeology/settlement interpretation/ social complexity). Further

research will provide the layout of the site and understand use of space. The State Party confirmed

that that it is possible to engage the British Institute of East Africa as they have been involved and

supported research in the area before. The also explained that they have already identified 7

archaeologists to look at the comments and assist. They were also advised to identify an expert to do a

comparative analysis of similar settlements in sub-Saharan Africa.

From the discussions it was revealed that most of the sites are on private land owned by individuals

and are not protected as national monuments. Only Thimlich is protected as a national monument. The

State Party was advised to consider the option of entering into a contract with the private owners of

land to resolve management issues identified as the option of buying land to extend the boundary may

be impossible due to financial limitations.

In terms of the conservation strategy, the State Party was advised to look at existing conservation

frameworks developed through the Africa 2009 programme, in particular for dry stone walls; e.g.

Great Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe) and Domboshaba (Botswana). The State Party further concurred by

indicating that one of their staff members was trained through this programme in Zimbabwe and has

subsequently trained the local people to do maintenance of the stone walls. The State Party was also

further advised that in terms of earthenware they can benchmark from work done by Craterre. The

State Party was advised to establish the extent and time required for further archaeological work that

needs to be conducted in order to augment the OUV of the site.

3.6.4 Human Rights, Liberation and Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites: South

Africa

The State Party explained that they have received advice on maps and they are also addressing issues

around the OUV, the values and attributes of the nominated properties, including refining which areas

to include as tangible elements of the sites. The State Party also informed the workshop that they are

still waiting for comments from pre-check for completeness by the World Heritage Centre. Much of

the discussion was centered on the rational of using the name of Nelson Mandela as the whole concept

is not about Mandela alone. Discussion stressed that the approach of human rights, liberation and

reconciliation in South Africa, should be used to leverage this proposed inscription. The other issue of

concern was how to address the issues of management in precinct areas which are already in

development areas? The team was asked to further work on the dossier to address these issues, while

waiting for the pre check comments from the World Heritage Centre.

During discussion it was recommended that a thematic workshop on Liberation Heritage be convened

to agree on a framework that could then be used to support transnational nominations on the same by

State Parties.

3.6.5 Venn’s Town Mission Station Historical Site: Seychelles

The workshop noted that the State Party has made very little progress in redefining the OUV, Criteria,

and Protection & Management framework, including failure to use the current format, of which the

State Party has been exposed to. They were further advised that defining the boundaries can only be

informed by the OUV, which includes considering other small islands associated with slavery

activities to form a serial site. Coordination and level of accountability on the development of the

nomination file was identified as an internal problem the State Party has to resolve. The workshop

advised that the nomination process requires the commitment of the State Party for it to be completed.

Also, the workshop recommended that the State Party consider other natural properties on their

national tentative list, referring to other Oceanic and Island states. The workshop suggested a thematic

workshop on slavery to build on the work started by the Republic of Tanzania, which could help State

Parties working on similar sites.

3.6.6 Summary of Resource Persons Discussions

The coordination and resource team observed that participants seem to be having problems in

understanding certain aspects of the nomination dossier, hence it was agreed to administer a

questionnaire that will identify areas that need further explanation and discussion. See appendix 4 for

the questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered and an analysis was made and the following

were strongly flagged by the participants:

1 Mapping and Boundaries

2 Criteria

3 Statement of Integrity

4 Statement of Authenticity

5 Comparative Analysis

6 Proposed statement of OUV

7 Property management plan or other management system

8 Key indicators for measuring state of conservation

From the comments, the coordination team decided to make the following presentations;

Mapping & Boundaries, Key indicators for measuring state of conservation – Guy Palmer

& Oladipo

Proposed statement of OUV, Criteria, and Integrity & Authenticity. Pascall

Taruvinga(culture, mixed) & Kagosi Mwamulowe (Nature)

Comparative Analysis – Gertrude Matswiri

Property Management plan or other management system – Gloria Borona

3.7 DAY 6: 22St NOVEMBER 2015: PRESENTATIONS ON THEMATIC AREAS;

RAPPORTEUR; PASCALL TARUVINGA

3.7.1 Presentations

Pascall and Kagosi presented on the OUV, integrity and authenticity. Pascall presented on the

criterion for culture for sites, mixed and cultural landscapes, as well as meeting the test of authenticity

and integrity. Focus was on how the criterion has evolved and been changed through time, how to

interpret them in order to define the OUV for cultural sites. Multiple examples were used to make

participants understand the complexity of dealing with criteria for cultural values.

Kagosi focused on the criterion for nature and issues of integrity with illustrative examples from

current World Heritage sites. The presentation provided insights into how the criterion should be

interpreted to define the OUV and meeting the conditions of integrity.

3.7.2 Discussion

A question and answer session provided participants with an opportunity to interrogate the concept of

OUV and how it relates to their sites. A lot of discussion ensued on the criterion for culture and the

following issues were discussed:

Relationship between values, significance and OUV;

Relationship between attributes and values;

Practical assessment of authenticity and the use of the NARA document & NARA +20;

Cultural landscapes;

Comparative analysis (in brief as a session was scheduled for the following day);

Selection of the most relevant criterion for a site;

Discussion of specific sites under consideration; RSA, Kenya, Ethiopia etc.

3.7.3 Country Exercises

Participants were requested to review their proposed OUV in view of the presentation and

discussions. The Statement of OUV template was used by all the participants. All participants were

encouraged to look beyond their initial proposals in order to have a quality Statement of OUV.

Resources persons worked closely with the individual countries during this exercise. Before close of

daily activities participants provided feedback on this exercise with the full presentations deferred for

the following day.

3.8 DAY 7: 23 NOVEMBER 2015: MAPPING; RAPPORTEUR; OLADIPO ADENIYI

The Mapping Expert identified the key areas that needed more attention for the various State

Parties.

3.8.1 Mapping and Boundaries: Oladipo Adeniyi

The Mapping Expert highlighted that Maps should include scale, title, directional arrow, grid

reference, geographical representation and a legend. It is recommended to use satellite

imagery to complement older maps and actual site visits to obtain GPS coordinates in order

to generate maps that are a true reflection of the features at the site. It is also worthwhile

having simple sketch maps that can illustrate the key components of the site. In case where

you have large areas it is important to use contours. If it is necessary to show details in

composite maps, segment them and then blow up the segments to show the details. In cases

where it is possible, use existing features to create the buffer zone.

In cases where the legal framework and the map do not align then you have to make the

necessary adjustments to the gazette or adjust the sites. All the features highlighted in your

dossier should be represented on the map.

3.8.2 Nomination process for Natural sites, mapping and Boundaries: Guy Palmer

Based on the extension of the Cape Floral Region Protected Areas (South Africa), Guy

Palmer, highlighted that the key defining feature of World Heritage is to demonstrate the

Outstanding Universal Value of the site, and consequently maps are critical to demonstrate

the adequacy of configuration and “buffering mechanisms” to protect this OUV. The State

Party must be able to assess, quantify and clearly articulate the value of the site and strongly

motivate with evidence, the OUV of the property. Guy Palmer emphasized the three pillars of

OUV; criteria, authenticity and integrity, and a robust protection and management regime

(authenticity is not applicable to natural properties). It is the responsibility of the State Party

to clearly explain the OUV by presenting concise information that is relevant to the

“argument” being made for the particular property. Additional information and supporting

documents should be included in the appendix and supplied only in “electronic” form.

Criteria (vii)-(x) were explained and related to the sites under discussion. It is worth noting

that criteria (vii) needs to be supported by another criterion.

3.8.3 Nomination process

The site under consideration needs to be on the tentative list for one year before

submission of the nomination dossier.

The deadline for submission of dossiers to UNESCO is 1st February each year.

The evaluation missions happen on +_ October of that year.

Inscription or other decision is made in June of the following year at the World

Heritage Committee session (16 months after the original submission to

UNESCO).

3.8.4 Sharing the South African experience

The State Party signed the World Heritage convention in July 1997, initiated the South

African World Heritage Convention Committee in 1998 and the World Heritage Act 49 in

1999. In addition they created a Site Manager’s Forum in 2010. The goal is to create a forum

through which to share experiences and challenges regarding management of World Heritage

sites. Further, the State Party established a joint management committee in 2006 for the Cape

Floral Region as there are 3 different management authorities responsible for this serial

property. In a nutshell, it is worthwhile creating collaborative forums drawing on experiences

of different parties within a country and also to pool energies into the nomination and

management processes.

3.8.5 Critical pointers discussed by Guy Palmer

It is useful to use other maps such as the biodiversity hot spot maps to buttress the

case for diversity and endemicity or other attributes of the site.

It should be acknowledged that the nomination process can be quite lengthy.

The Cape Floral Region appointed an editor who collated all the information

required for the compilation of the nomination dossier.

State Parties’ should keep themselves abreast with the changes in requirements for

maps as these change regularly (maps need to show precise localities of boundaries

with particular emphasis on areas of potential dispute regarding, for example,

whether the development is inside or outside the World Heritage Site so the scale

and detail needs to make this very clear.

Buffer zones should be considered within a set of many other “Buffering

mechanisms”. Buffer zones should be designed to respond to the specific threats

relevant to the site. There are no specific regulations regarding the extent of buffer

zones. Some of the buffering mechanisms used in South Africa include; declared

private mountain catchment areas, other protected areas not included in the

nomination, ”Stewardship” contracts signed with private land owners (this is

supported by the incentive of tax rebates to the owners), “landscape initiatives” such

as corridors to accommodate climate change, business and biodiversity best practice

(an initiative by WWF South Africa to promote farming in an environmentally

friendly and efficient manner), local governments methods of landscape governance

and environmental legislations and regulations. These buffering mechanisms

together extend over most of the landscape.

Data collection and other monitoring activities, with the associated processing of this

data into knowledge, are critical for informed planning and decision making. It can

also be useful when motivating for funding or other forms of support to carry out

activities at sites.

Build networks amongst individuals and organizations that can support your

conservation goals at sites. The criteria can be changed any time before the

nomination is submitted. The tentative list should be amended a year before

submission. In cases where there is a change of names the State Party should write a

letter to the World Heritage Centre

South Africa will share the guidelines they have developed on the procedure for

nominating sites into the world heritage list.

It is important to retain your site on the tentative list if an extension is contemplated.

3.8.6 Presentation of Maps and issues arising from group discussions

This section outlines the issues on the Maps as observed after the States Parties presentations of their

current maps. Each State Party analysed maps of another State Party and presented findings. This

gave ample opportunity for exchange of views and practicing what they had learnt during the mapping

presentations by resource persons.

A table showing the Comments and Observations made on Maps presented by States Parties;

Site and State Party Comments

1. Dirre Sheikh Hussein

: Ethiopia

Map 1 does not indicate the core zone.

Map 2: Location of the site: The boundaries

do not appear.

Map 3. The core zone is outside the boundary

of the site. This relates to the issue of the

legislation and the boundaries raised earlier.

There are no values and intervals for

contours.

The buildings do not appear.

2. Venn’s own mission

station: Seychelles

There is no title for the map and it does not

show the full boundary of the National park

in the buffer zone.

Suggested that they refocus on the national

park which will change both the core and

buffer zone.

No directional arrow and legend.

3. Sof Umar Caves:

Ethiopia

Locator map: The inset is the same as the

larger map. E.

Include a map of Africa indicating Ethiopia’s

location and avoid too much detail in this

map. Just have a marker showing the main

site.

There is no arrow/orientation and no grid

lines.

Map ii: network of the caves

You cannot get all the information needed to

understand the cave system. Break down the

map into parts and show details.

The north arrow does not face up. Break

down the map into parts and show details.

The scale is missing and the legend is not

clear.

The buffer and core zone are not clearly

marked.

Indicate the source of the map, the year and

author. Use a scale that can give lots of

details

Map 3: Site in relation to drainage

The North arrow is missing.

The location of the site is not indicated.

The source and projection are missing (this is

important for all maps).

4. Nyero and other

Geometric rock art

sites: Uganda

Map 1 : Locator map

There are grids missing to show latitude and

longitude.

Map 2: Sketch map for Nyero

Contours are missing to show the highest

point at the site.

The legend and directional arrow are not

included.

Map 3:

Include the title and contours.

5. Barotse Cultural

Landscape: Zambia

Map 1: Location of Zambia in Africa

This map has all the components.

Map 2:

The legend and the colours used are not clear,

especially the colour contrast.

The core zone was obscuring the national

park.

The traditional canals are not very clear. It

was suggested that another map should be

developed to show these.

6. Human rights,

reconciliation and

liberation. Mandela

legacy sites: South

Africa

Map1. Locator

The locator map does not show where SA is

located in Africa.

It is cluttered with grid lines. These should be

removed to make it look neater.

Map 2: showing distribution of sites

The map should cover at least 1/3 of the page.

A legend should be developed to indicate the

names of the districts.

Include grid lines.

Map 3: Location of sites in Gauteng province

Include grid lines.

Make the symbol of the sites stand out.

Map4: Aerial photo map

This should be cleaned up to provide clarity.

If you use the ortho-photo pick the important

elements and draw lines. The ortho photo

should be included in the background and

indicate the names of the streets and names of

buildings.

Map 5: Sharpeville human rights precinct

Identify the various sites on the legend.

Indicate the buildings make up the core.

The map is naked, beef it up with vegetation

and show foot paths.

This map can be overlaid on the ortho-photo

map.

The names/ authors should be indicated.

Give credits to the various sources.

7. Thimlich Ohinga

cultural landscape:

Kenya

Map 1. Location map

Show where Kenya is in Africa.

Everything else is okay.

Map 2: Also okay.

8. Sanganeb Marine

National Park and

Dungonab bay-

Mukawar Marine

Map1. Nominated property and buffer zone

The core and buffer zones are not very clear,

change the colours of the lines used and make

the core zone stand out.

National Park: Sudan

Show the overlapping nature of the existing

legislation.

The terrestrial area should be included as

part of the core.

Say the unprotected areas will be added in the

future extensions of the sites.

Map 2: Sanganeb Atoll Marine National park

Everything is represented.

Map 3: Dungonob bay

Delineate Mukawar marine national park.

Coordinates should be precise and important

features in the core zone should be reflected.

9. Bale Mountain

National Park:

Ethiopia

Map 1: Buffer zone and buffering mechanism maps

Indicate the map source and contour

gradients.

Separate the title from the legend.

Place the names of the zones in the map to

avoid it looking empty.

Use colour on the zonal maps.

Include hill shadings on the Nyala

distribution maps.

3.8.7 Extra Comment on Maps

Further to the comments in the above table, the GIS Expert also observed the following:

General comment on all Maps

-Consider using a more Universal Datum e.g. WGS84.

-Make the lines for the Core and Buffer zone thinner. You can use red for core and

purple for buffer to differentiate them.

-It is much easier to use a natural feature such as road, river, footpath etc. as buffer

demarcation.

-Reduce the density of the grid lines where necessary by using higher grid intervals,

this can be varied as you print.

Using maps from Ethiopia, the GIS Expert further highlighted the following;

(i) Sheik Husein

-Much more detail work is required; all features referred to in the dossier must

be shown on the map.

-A building should be shown as polygon and a large scaled map should be

presented to show distinctly all the features including connecting roads and

path.

-Avoid a situation where features are at the edge of boundary especially

features in the dossier being on the edge of the core where one is not sure if it

is in or out.

(ii) Sof Omar Cave

-There is the need to clearly show on a map/plan the said 15km length of the

cave. Its good practice to indicate using dotted line since the cave is

underground.

-The location of the enclosure such as the mosque and other "rooms"

mentioned in the dossier should be shown along the line.

(iii) Observation on the Maps presented in the Asmara Nomination Dossier

There was need to show a composite map (Page 4) of the dossier to indicate the

Core area and Buffer Zone. This was a clear indication that the nomination is not

serial. Therefore the map on page 9 should show details of individual sites in the

series as well as its buffer where applicable. The area on the northern part labelled

“2” in the draft nomination dossier is already within the buffer of the main

component hence it may not require a separate buffer.

The coordinates of the approximate centre of each of the components and their

areas must be provided to the nearest second using the table proposed in the

comment.

The larger map sheets in A3 and above should accompany the Nomination file.

This will make it possible to have the maps printed in large scale for clearer

viewing.

3 separate maps for each of the 3 components as mentioned above should be

produced and this should have a large scale presentation of the main component

on a larger sheet in the attachment and should be clearly labelled.

Be careful of the use of the word “Protected Zone” as it can easily be confused

with the Nomination or Core area and should therefore be avoided.

A topographic map showing the 3 components, their core and buffer zones as well

other general features such as vegetation, rivers, major/minor roads, contours,

footpaths etc. should be produced.

The Legend in most of the maps is limited, showing only Core and Buffer zone. It

should be more detail as stated above.

All features described in “Summary History of Architecture in Asmara” should be illustrated

with a map.

In addition, Participants suggested that one or two people should sit down with the mapping

unit of the World Heritage Centre to understudy what exactly is the ideal map in order to

improve the upstreaming process on the African continent.

3.9 DAY 9: 23RD NOVEMBER 2015: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS-

RAPPORTEUR; KAGOSI MWAMULOWE

Guy Palmer and Gertrude Matswiri presented on comparative analysis for nature and culture

sites; and the following was highlighted:

3.9.1 Comparative Analysis for natural properties: Guy Palmer

Start by reading the Comparative Analysis section in the World Heritage Site Nomination

Guidelines and the small section in the Operational Guidelines.

Compare only sites/properties that have the same or very similar attributes.

Select properties from the UNESCO list that have used the same criteria. Also look at the

Tentative Lists for other potential properties.

Sites with the same or very similar attributes not already inscribed on the UNESCO

World Heritage Site list must also be interrogated.

Use Advisory Body and AWHF Gap Analyses to aid selection.

Use Biodiversity hotspot publication to aid selection.

Do literature reviews to find relevant information, remembering that this is a “desk top”

exercise so only properties that have the relevant information (data/knowledge) can be

used.

For natural sites facts/data are needed from each site selected for the comparative

analysis.

Examples; depending on the criteria and specific attributes selected for OUV:

Number of species, plant and/or animal;

Number of endemic species;

Number of species listed as species of conservation concern in the Red Data Books and

their specific status;

Number of vegetation types;

Number of habitat types.

Guy Palmer emphasized that;

Any sites which may have failed can also be used for comparative analysis.

For natural heritage sites facts are needed e.g. number of species; number of

endemic species, number of species of conservation concern, how many

different vegetation types, types of coral reefs, etc. would thus be very useful.

For Geologically/Geomorphologically significant site information on the

geological /geomorphic formations, features and/or the formation processes

are key for comparative purposes as well as determining the OUV.

Principles of comparative analysis for cultural heritage are the same as for

natural heritage.

Size of the property is important but is not prescribed but has to

accommodate the OUV of the selected criteria.

Management capacity is not directly relevant to this part of the process.

Be concise and do not use or refer to information that is not directly relevant

to justifying your argument relating to the comparison of the OUV of the

properties.

Questions and Answer and Areas of Emphasis

Question 1: Do you compare sites that have different criteria?

Answer: You can mention in a comparative analysis but it is important to

clarify.

Question 2: How many sites do you need compare?

Answer: Chose the best properties with a minimum of three. 5 to 6 is

usually sufficient. Also consider geographical representation and explain

what is different and better regarding your site.

Using Bale Mountain National Park as an example, Guy Palmer further pointed out that:

It is important to compare isolated mountainous areas with other similar areas

with high levels of endemism. This site has a number of endemic species

within a relatively small area, a number of which are endangered. This would

result in BMNP having to be compared with the Simien National Park World

Heritage Site thereby potentially supporting the proposal for a serial

nomination representing different aspects of the Abyssinian Highlands.

Bale may have to be inscribed as an extension of Simien National Park World

Heritage Site to be able to qualify for World Heritage status as they are each

part of the same system but fortunately each has several attributes that the

other does not exhibit.

3.9.2 Comparative Analysis Case Study: Okavango Delta Case (Botswana)-Gertrude

Matswiri

Gertrude Matswiri presented on comparative analysis and used the comparative analysis of Okavango

Delta as a Case Study. She explained that comparative analysis assists in understanding the OUV of a

property and feeds into the process of identifying such value. She further explained that comparative

analysis must help to draw conclusions as to whether the site has OUV and has a place in the World

Heritage list and that if it is thoroughly and objectively done, it can greatly contribute to successful

nominations. It was also explained that authenticity and integrity are an important part of the

comparative analysis. The presenter further explained that comparative analysis can lead to three

different outcomes:

That the property ranks highly when compared with similar properties and can fill a gap

on the World Heritage list and the State Party can go ahead with its nomination process;

That the property ranks at low level when compared with similar properties and it does

not fill any gap on the World Heritage list and the State Party may wish to carefully

reconsider the nomination of the property;

Or the property ranks at the same level of importance as other similar properties, and this

may indicate that the case for potential relatively OUV is weak or a borderline case. This

aspect of the presentation was very important as it emphasized that comparative analysis

can assist a State Party to make a decision on whether to go ahead with the nomination

process, thus avoiding wasting resources on working on a site which does not have

potential.

She also presented on key principles to be considered in preparing a comparative analysis and

common problems associated with comparative analysis and where to find sources of information

about comparative analysis.

A case study of the comparative analysis of the Okavango Delta was used. She explained that the

comparative analysis of the property was based on the outstanding universal values of the property, its

related attributes and features and how it is important nationally, regionally and internationally. It also

identified the similarities it has with other properties and how it stands out. Its comparison was also

based on comparing its integrity with other similar properties. The presenter also highlighted the

values of the property and the criteria for inscription, so as to further show how the property was

compared with other sites. The property was compared with sites such as the Pantanal Conservation

Area in Brazil, the Llanos Venezuela Wetland, Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Mesopotamian

Wetlands of Southern Irag, the Niger Delta, and the Sudd Wetlands of Sudan. Lastly IUCN

Additional Comparative analysis that supplements that of the nomination was discussed to highlight

aspects of comparison that the nomination did not look at.

3.9.4 Management systems: Gloria Kendi Borona

Gloria Borona presented on management systems and used examples from Rock Art sites (Chongoni

in Malawi and Kondoa in Tanzania) and Natural Properties recently inscribed, among them the Cape

Floral Region. Some of the key issues discussed with regard to community engagement include;

benefits sharing, diverse stakeholder engagement, conservation challenges at sites and contested

heritage(s). Furthermore the presentations demonstrated traditional management structures drawing

examples from Kakadu National Park in Australia and the Kaya Mijikienda Sacred Forests in Kenya,

as well as planning processes which vary from one context to another. Gloria highlighted the

importance of data collection for developing a base line for planning and monitoring purposes. She

further stressed that indicators of change should be highlighted for monitoring including considering

Risk preparedness as an important component of management planning.

4.0 GROUP WORK: STATEMENTS OF OUTSTANDING VALUE

AND WORK PLANS

4.1 23RD NOVEMBER 2015: STATEMENTS OF OUTSTANDING VALUE AND

WORK PLANS

Based on the individual evaluation form results conducted earlier and after subjecting the participants

to presentations of their amended Statement of OUV and comparative analysis, the facilitating team

gave the participants an opportunity to further develop their respective Statement of Outstanding

Value. A template was also provided by the resource persons.

This exercise was not very easy to handle as the participants expressed concerns for the need for more

information, consultations, more time for editorials, comparative analysis and confirmation for

purposes of authenticity and ownership.

4.2 24TH NOVEMBER 2015: SUMMARY OF GROUP WORKS

States Parties were asked to continue with Group work on their Action Plans using a template that was

prepared and given to them by the coordinating team. The Group Work continued until the afternoon

when presentations were made by participants on their Action Plans. The Action Plans were being

critiqued and participants asked to make amendments after which they immediately submitted to the

facilitating team.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite the initial logistical setbacks, the workshop progressed and achieved the desired results. The

workshop achieved a number of objectives. All the States Parties present were able to present

their progress reports on the process of preparing the nomination dossiers and were given

detailed comments by resource persons. There was sharing of information and experiences by

the various States Parties. This was followed by the updating of the Statements of

Outstanding Value by each State Party.

The workshop, as expected by organizing institutions, gave an opportunity for the

coordinators to assess skills among the participants/and resource persons who could also be

used in other future and similar assignments. Gap analysis was also done in the nomination

process and areas of intervention by various stakeholders were identified by the coordinating

team for future programmes. To this effect follow-up activities have been produced as

evidenced in the various States Parties Action Plans as well as the mentorship programme

being put in place and already implemented in some cases. The Participants were also

provided with a number of reference materials and manuals and were thus imparted with

additional skills to enable them to produce dossiers of improved quality.

As observed, the field visits were not helpful as there was no opportunity to adequately

observe the site attributes and make proper reference to site observations. This is an area that

needs improvement in future upstreaming processes. The video documentaries and

photographic slide presentations provided by the State Parties on the potential sites including

those on the World Heritage Tentative List provided a better understanding of the sites and

their strengths and weaknesses.

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD

The road map for the individual sites are outlined States Parties Action Plans and endorsed during the

Workshop (see Annexes). State Parties will implement the Action Plans, subject to approval by their

respective institutions with the Mentors monitoring the progress thereof.

1. Based on the above the following is recommended for each specific potential site.

Site and State Party Workshop Recommendation

1. Dirre Sheikh Hussein

: Ethiopia

Potential for inscription; low

Recommendation; State Party should clearly define

and establish the OUV and the criteria for the site based

on a comparative analysis of similar sites. Current

argument illustrates local values which may be difficult

to sustain for World Heritage purposes. The State Party

should consider an Integrated Management Plan, which

should include Conservation, Tourism and Education

elements for the site. The State Party noted these

recommendations and proposed that a new nomination

dossier needs to be developed, but requested for

assistance with getting political buy in at national level.

Possible date of submission: 3 years (2018).

Mentor required: Expert in Islamic Historic and sites

of religious importance/Architectural Expert.

2. Venn’s own mission

station: Seychelles

Potential for inscription: low

Recommendation: extensive work and commitment

needed to refocus the nomination file (including other

smaller islands associated with slave marooning), and

alternatively, State Party could consider other sites on

their Tentative List. AWHF considers engaging the

State Party on these matters.

Possible date of submission: 3-5 years (2018-2020).

Mentor required: Historian and/Nature Expert.

3. Sof Umar Caves:

Ethiopia

Potential for inscription; low-medium

Recommendation; State Party should consider

submitting the site for its natural values, especially the

geological aspects. Considering the geological

component of the site, the State Party could also be used

to explore the possibility of protection as a GEOPARK.

A mentor is needed to advise and guide the State Party

on these matters.Developmental issues along the river

system and around the site need to be addressed,

including integrating Indigenous Knowledge Systems or

Religious beliefs in the management approach.

Possible date of submission: 3 Years (2018).

Mentor required: Geologist/Nature Expert.

4. Nyero and other

Geometric rock art

sites: Uganda

Potential for inscription; medium

Recommendation: State Party needs to seriously

consider addressing World Heritage Committee

comments, including refocusing the OUV to reflect

Geometric Art. Addressing management issues is

imperative.

Possible date of submission: 2 years (2017).

Mentor required: Rock Art Specialist/Geometric –

preferably from Central Africa/Management Specialist.

5. Barotse Cultural

Landscape: Zambia Potential for inscription; High

Recommendation: State Party considers addressing

with finality all issues raised by the World Heritage

Committee, and more importantly address the tension

between conservation and extractive processes as a

stakeholder driven process resulting in formal

agreements as the case of Okavango Delta (Botswana).

Possible date of submission: latest by 1 Year (1st Feb

2017).

Mentor required: Facilitator for stakeholder

discussions on relationship between extractive industries

and conservation.

6. Human rights,

reconciliation and

liberation. Mandela

legacy sites: South

Africa

Potential for inscription; low-medium

Recommendation: State Party should work with a

mentor to address the following elements of the dossier;

values and attributes illustrating the OUV, boundary

delineations and mapping, link with Robben Island, and

management framework supported by site specific

management plans, and comparative analysis. State

Party to consider the amendments suggested after

submission and possible comments from the pre-check

for completeness by the World Heritage Centre.

Possible date of submission: 1 year (1st Feb 2017)

Mentor required: Historian/Management Expert/GIS-

Mapping specialist.

7. Thimlich Ohinga

cultural landscape:

Kenya

Potential for inscription; low-medium

Recommendation: State Party to undertake

archaeological excavations to augment evidence and

fine tune the OUV illustrating human settlement,

including addressing comparative analysis, boundary

issues, conservation strategies and land matters.

Possible date of submission: 2-3 years (2017-2018).

Mentor required: Archaeologist and Dry Stone

Engineering Expert.

8. Sanganeb Marine

National Park and

Dungonab bay-

Mukawar Marine

National Park:

Sudan

Potential for inscription; High

Recommendation: State Party to work with a mentor to

finalise issues raised in the IUCN Technical Evaluation

and up-date the nomination dossier with special

emphasis on the maps.

Possible date of submission: 3 months (Feb 2016).

Mentor required: Nature Expert

9. Bale Mountain

National Park:

Ethiopia

Potential for inscription; High

Recommendation: State Party needs to redefine the

OUV with the assistance of a mentor, develop an

integrated management and address the issue of

communities. The feasibility of an extension of the

Simien Mountain National Park World Heritage Site

needs to be investigated.

Possible date of submission: 2-3 years (2017-2018).

Mentor required: Nature Expert.

2 Based on the roadmap, each State Party will be assigned a Mentor who is expected to follow-

up the workshop resolutions i.e. Action Plans to the core to ensure continuity.

3 Ethiopia requested assistance with identifying potential World Heritage sites on their national

Tentative List.

4 Guidelines should be developed to guide State Parties in the:

4.1 Preparation of Tentative Lists, and;

4.2 Pre nomination checklist.

5 AWHF and the coordination team to:

5.1 Review and process an effective upstreaming process for the nomination of African

sites, and views from the Francophone will also be considered (Pascall Taruvinga).

5.2 Follow-up on the previous Nomination Training Courses facilitated by AWHF and

other stakeholders, and recommend appropriate strategy to deal with sites outstanding

from previous nomination training programmes (Gloria Borona, Gertrude Matswiri

and Kagosi Mwamulowe).

5.3 Other African States Parties should equally be advised on the need to review their

tentative lists to ensure focus is on sites with potential for listing.

5.4 For future workshops there is need for more focus on the Site field Visits for the host

country and undertaking preparatory mission to avoid the challenges experienced in

Ethiopia.

5.5 Develop a framework for two thematic workshops:

a. Liberation Heritage of Africa;

b. Slave heritage of Africa.

6.0 ANNEXURES

1. List of participants, coordinators, and resource persons

2. Daily Programme for the workshop

3. Statement of OUV (by State Parties)

4. Knowledge Evaluation Form

5. Evaluation Analysis and forms

6. Action Plans

7. Photo Gallery